Indirect Cost Recovery Rates: Why Do They Differ?
This paper reviews the history of the federal government's indirect cost recovery system and empirically examines the determinants of IRC rates. We find that, ceteris paribas schools in the Northeast have higher ICR rates, as do schools with high administrative expenses, a disproportionate number of graduate students, and larger expenditures on physical plant. Private research universities have higher ICR rates than do public research universities, but other factors turn out to explain most of this difference. Institutional characteristics relating to the mix of operations, financial characteristics, and location all play an important role in the determination of this rate, implying that there are good economic reasons for much of the observed variation in ICR rates both between and within sectors.
Volume (Year): 22 (1996)
Issue (Month): 2 (Spring)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: c/o Dr. Alexandre Olbrecht, The Anisfield School of Business 205, Ramapo College, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Ramapo, New Jersey 07430, USA|
Phone: (201) 684-7346
Web page: https://www.quinnipiac.edu/eea/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:22:y:1996:i:2:p:205-214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.